job_get

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read. The description adds useful behavioral detail: the status is 'owner-bound' (implying access is scoped to the owner), progress is monotonic, and the batch result is terminal. It doesn't cover rate limits, pagination, or what 'owner-bound' means if the caller is not the owner.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every clause contributes: the operation, the scoping constraint, the progress semantics, and the terminal result.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With an output schema present, the description needn't explain the return shape, and it does convey the key behavioral traits (owner-bound, monotonic, terminal). The only gap is the absence of usage context relative to siblings, which is minor given the tool's narrow read-only scope.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries some burden. It mentions the job but not the jobId or workspaceId parameters by name or format; the schema provides the regex patterns, and an output schema exists so return values needn't be explained. Baseline 3 is appropriate with the schema supplying the parameter constraints.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (Returns) and resource (asynchronous export job) with the exact data returned: owner-bound status, monotonic progress, and terminal batch result. It is distinguishable from sibling job_cancel (a mutation) by its read nature, though it doesn't explicitly name an alternative.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The phrase 'asynchronous export job' and 'terminal batch result' imply usage during or after an export, but the description never states when to poll versus cancel, nor names job_cancel as the alternative.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.